"Jesus Is A Cunt" Cradle Of Filth Shirts Reportedly Seized From Invercargill Store

Stuff.co.nz is reporting that Cradle of Filth's infamous "Jesus is a Cunt" shirts (image available after the jump) were seized from a store in Invercargill, New Zealand on June 5th. The story reads as follows:

Clothing that describes Jesus Christ as a profanity was seized from a south Invercargill store by police yesterday. Police took away the offending apparel after being asked to do so by Internal Affairs.

The tops would be sent to the department which would decide, after consulting with police, whether the owners of the Impuls'd store which sells them would be charged with any criminal offenses.

The Southland Times yesterday revealed the store, owned byWarren and Angela Skill, was selling hooded tops with the words "Jesus is a c***" emblazoned on the back.

Sergeant Brock Davis, of Invercargill, said police visited the store mid-afternoon and seized between 10 and 15 hooded tops and long-sleeved T-shirts with the offending words on them. The owner was co-operative, he said. People have been seen wearing the tops on city streets in the past week, with a 68-year-old visitor to the city saying she was horrified when she saw a man walking along Dunns Rd with the offending words emblazoned across his back.

In 2008, T-shirts with the same wording were banned by then chief censor Bill Hastings. The ban made any act of possessing, wearing, distributing or selling the T-shirt, or another top withthe same wording and imagery, illegal.

Sarah Shirley, an 18-year-old Invercargill resident who was wearing one of the tops in the city this week, said yesterday it was ridiculous that police had seized the hooded tops from the store. The tops advertise an album for British extreme metal group Cradle of Filth.

I have worn this shirt many times, as a Christian none-the-less. More to see the reaction of people and get conversation going vs. actually thinking Cradle of Filth is the shiznit ... but I must admit, it really does gain some strong negative reactions. People are so strange, how they can allow words to cause them such discomfort? I mean, I understand that according to the gospel of James people should not be profane, etc ... but come on ... we are all filled with sin. WTF?! A crime?! Weak.

Bill Hastings is a tool. He says "it is the most offensive piece of clothing he has ever seen, 'because it fuses religion with the most aggressive, misogynistic word in the English language, with sexual activity depicted on the front that implies even celibate women can not resist sex'." Atta read into it, tool. How about Jesus is a d***?

This neck of the woods if full of relgious tools and censors. The shirt itself was first reported by a member of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards to the chief censor. The SPCS is a conservative Christian-dominated organisation in New Zealand, founded by a former RC nun. Thanks in part to the internet and sympathetic government, organizations like this one are fairly organized and can target metal with some success.

Whether this type of censorship is necessary is questionable. The censorship violates greater freedom, with the questionable ethics of furthering the cause of the SPCS which is to "include the encouragement of 'self-respect and the dignity of the human person, made in the image of God', the 'recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages', and the promotion of "wholesome personal values, including strong family life and the benefits of lasting marriage'." This from an organization that strongly opposes gay and lesbian rights, etc, the usual conservative Christian agenda.

The organisation appears to target sex and sexual content in the arts, with the idea of eliminating these things from society through censorship. No surprise given the content of the shirt and the nature of the foundation of the organisation that it was targeted. As someone opposed to this form of censorship, I find the way these kooks read into the imagery and content offensive and disturbing. And this from an organization with perhaps 400 members, attempting to dictate the rights and privilages of many, many others, all the while trying to further their conservative Christian agenda, not protect the rights within a free society.

Its a trashy f***ing shirt. Makes people that wear it look ignorant. OMG, Im such a rebel and its soooo awesome to bash religion! Its ignorant, but dont get me wrong, there are just as many ignorant christians out there, who say all soldiers, fags, and anyone who isnt them is going to hell. I disagree with both sides. For f***s sake, just be respectful to everyone and their beliefs. I dont bash anyone for what they believe. If your a crazy christian or a douche with a jesus is a c*** shirt on, get over yourself and quit trying sooo hard to be an outcast or offensive. Why does everyone have to try so hard to be that way? Both sides!

i agree with korndogg on this one, its one thing to represent yourself and your beliefs, but its another thing to wear clothing that insults other peoples beliefs.

im an atheist myself, and im very strongly opinionated when it comes to religion. making a shirt like this is just a cry for attention, and it makes people like me - a strongly opinionated atheist - look foolish.

F*** it! I agree with being respectful to people, but at the same time, I view that shirt as freedom of expression. Just because the conservative Christians don't like it does not give them the right to ban it or censor it. Freedom of expression! The religious right always targets those that practice or espouse different beliefs than them. They can never seem to leave other people alone to live their lives. I personally don't believe Jesus was a c*** at all, but I'm not about to point the finger at someone wearing that shirt and say, Hey, you can't wear that. It's the Christians overstepping their bounds, and claiming rights that are not theirs to begin with. It doesn't seem to occur to them that it's OK to express non-Christian viewpoints. There are some cases where freedom of expression is taken too far, such as the g**damn Westboro Baptist Church, but to me this shirt does not take personal expression too far. Freedom of expression.

It's funny how this gets targeted. Dani Filth in his lyrics doesn't really shy away from feminine principles, whether it be the divine feminine, sex, vice, etc, or artistically from the feminine form. Rather than get hit with a strictly pornographic label, the lyrics and art here seem to attract a stable market, including females, rather than alienating the feminine market. How does this differ from traditional porn, which often does alienate a female market, and from restrictive medieval type religious principles, which also often alienates females, at least unelss they conform? In simple terms, it's art, and deserves the rights that artistic expression should have. If this was a painting or poem rather than a metal t shirt I don't think there would be a lot of interest in it.

The conservative Christian organization that originally moved to have this thing banned is of a more medieval mindset than an artistic crowd. Religious conservatism and the arts have often been at odds, with the Vatican doing most of the censoring for a long time, until later groups like this take it to the censors or through the courts. Traditionally, the feminine form and feminine sexuality are repressed, or denied outright, and feminine principles of the divine tend to be presented as a kind of eunuch female with no sexual features and a meek downcast expression. It's not just the word c***. It's the entire embodiment of the desexualized, sexually controlled and confined female in the conservative Christian agenda against the image of it's opposite ideal. Feminists aren't exactly rallying to ban this shirt, who do tend to target porn because of it’s link with sex offenders and violence against women. Religious conservatives are, who tend to target sexual freedom.

It's a thin, thin line between controlling what a person wears and controlling the person wearing it. Between repressing the image of a body or action, and the body or action itself. So, sure, the conservative Christian group doesn't want tits visible on a shirt, but how far does that go? Do they ban cleavage and tits altogether? Masturbation isn't that offensive, but it's against the rules of their faith. A masturbating vestal is a rule breaker, tying in further with the more drastic form of expression. It worked, the point got across. It wasn't anti porn people that got in an outrage, it was religious conservatives. I don't think anyone would ever argue that it was meant to be in good taste. But it definitely falls short of being specific enough to constitute any kind of hate speech against a specific church. Wearing a t shirt that says Jesus is a c*** isn't the same as wearing a t shirt that says All Westborough Baptists are c***s. Those in favor of censorship tend to blur the line between art and porn in their arguments to further their agendas, and groups like this like to make their self and their conservative agenda visible, while blotting out other groups and faiths in direct opposition. You can wear a crucifix around your neck, but that t shirt with the inverted cross has got to go. Who gives a sh**. It’s just a f***ing metal t shirt. But to a religious conservative, getting rid of all this stuff is what furthering their agenda is all about.

I think the shirt kind of says “this isn’t yours to control anymore” and these religious monkeys stand up and say “yes it is,” and with a tool of a censor and no appeal, you get cops acting as fashion police rather than doing a real job.

Personally I don't care for censorship, all for freedom of arts and speech.But pity the poor sods who are stupid enough to buy/wear this sh**.If Dani filth started masturbating in public I reckon 1/2 of COF fanbase would see this as high-art.

asp.. your argument sucks d***.I am not in favour of censorship, but to portray this as some sort of "thought control" exercise is ludicrous.

Your right to do whatever you want in public, has to be balanced with everybody elses rights as well.

I believe that my kids rights not to be confronted by masoginistic pornography and obscenity when walking down the street trumps the wish of hormonal adolescents with a penchent for sh** music to "dress shockingly".

First category on the SPCS’s homepage is *censorship.* Targeting the goal of censoring within the categories of new technology (such as music videos and video games,) film, and film ratings.

Section 2 g. of the SPCS’s objectives: To raise money that will be used, under the control of the executive, to promote the moral and spiritual welfare of sectors of society that need special help and to advance the charitable objects of the Society (a) to (f). (That means make money and spend it like a$$holes.)

While (a) - (f) are for the most part fairly ambiguous, the SPCS details these areas of “special help” more specifically in other parts of it’s website, including opposition to civil unions, anti gay and lesbian rights, HIV/AIDS as “gay” disease, attacking organizations for promoting the use of condoms in the prevention of HIV/AIDS, abortion law, promotion of physical punishment of children and lobbying against “anti-smacking” laws, on and on, and finally, the “celebration of the Christian tradition.” Why is this a charity, again? Censorship and the furthering of their own outlined religiously biased agenda through donation.

The SPCS actively seeks to censor hoards of material. That means they attempt to *control* what material is available in your society, be it film, television, publications, or otherwise. Attempting to “further” the ideas and purposes listed above (gay bashing, hitting kids, and their brand of religion) through opinionated propaganda and lobbying.

The society drags a thin veil over it’s untimely ventures by saturating its site with obscene and extreme examples of violent sex crime and pornography, creating an unbalanced effect that is more than exaggerated through their Christian trappings and mindful targeting of gays, lesbians, children, and women.

One stupid shirt is one more victory for the agenda of the SPCS. Let these pricks come out to feed. An easy victory that falls short of their goals, it does validate again that metal is still an easy target for censorship. One shirt doesn’t tell the tale of how many items are seized by customs that don’t make it to their intended market, or the struggles of even some popular bands with the issue of censorship.